I am no longer writing new posts for this blog. Readers may email me - kevin at thewordinc.org - if they'd like to be on my email list to receive news about my upcoming shows, books, TV appearances, etc.

10 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Archbishop Carlson's testimony is a perfect example as to why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops spend tons of money fighting the removal of the 'statute of limitations' for child sex crimes. These statues help the church officials to keep themselves in power and out of jail. Their biggest fear is what recently happened to Carlson. They do not ever want their "secret archives" subpoenaed and they don't ever want to be subpoenaed to have to sit on that witness stand and dare to tell the truth. They could land themselves in jail for covering up sex crimes against kids or the very least for perjury.

Sadly the sex abuse and cover up within the church hierarchy throughout the world is still going on to this day. Cardinals and bishops are still not removing accused predator clergy, and they are still not reporting to law enforcement. Their so called "zero tolerance" policy is not being followed by the bishops who created it. They don't have to, because there is no punishment to force the bishops to change their ways of protecting their power and the institution rather than protecting innocent children.

Children do not deserve to be treated with such callous and dangerous behavior. It is time for predator friendly laws to get changed and for outside law enforcement to get involved to get this abuse of power stopped.It just doesn't cut it anymore to claim "ignorance" especially when it comes to covering up sex crimes against children. It appears that Archbishop Robert J. Carlson has been caught in a lie, with a document that proves he did in fact know that child sex abuse is and was a crime. How can he be trusted to tell the truth now? He has plenty of practice in dealing with the sex abuse issue in his priestly lifetime.

And now in the St Louis Archdiocese, we have two allegations of child sex abuse by Fr Jiang , whom Carlson is protecting, rather than taking precautions to protect innocent unsuspecting children today. This callous abuse of power has got to get stopped now. And it appears we can not count on Pope Francis to take any decisive actions to protect kids, so we urge others who may have knowledge or may have been harmed by anyone in St. Paul-Minneapolis, Sioux Falls, Saginaw or the Archdiocese of St Louis to please find the courage to come forward and contact police. Do not report any abuse to the church officials, they are not the proper officials to be investigating child sex crimes.

Sex abuse thrives in secrecy and secret systems and until this gets stopped children are not safe today.Silence is not an option anymore, it only hurts, and by speaking up there is a chance for healing, exposing the truth, and therefore protecting othersJudy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511, SNAPJudy@gmail.com SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

Kevin, have you read the whole deposition? Keep in mind that Abp Carlson had been deposed by the same lawyer, Mr. Anderson three separate times in the 1980's regarding these same cases. (By the way, he is not a defendant in the present lawsuit, just a witness). There was also abundant documentation on the cases, which neither Carlson or his lawyers had been allowed to see. His lawyers lodged a vigorous complaint abut this.

It's very clear the Abp's answers of "I don't remember" were part of a legal strategy to get Anderson to be specific in his questioning, and refer to actual documents (in some cases the Abp would say "I don't remember exactly, but I refer to the document" or "I believe there is a document on this"). In many cases the strategy was successful. After a few "I don't remembers," Anderson would break down and refer to the actual document. So, immediately after those "I don't remembers" on whether he knew sex with a minor was a crime (pp. 108-109), Anderson said:

Q. Well, you're talking about criminal sexual conduct in 1980, and you're talking about it again in 1984, [referring to the documents] so you knew that to be correct, right?A. What I said, I said, and if I -- if I wrote it, I said it.

So the whole exchange does confirm that Abp Carlson knew sexual abuse of a minor was a crime in 1980 and that it was in the documents the Abp had written at the time, and Anderson knew it; he was forced to admit he already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But who is quoting this part of the testimony in the rush to judgment?

Your little scenario with Jesus is not an apt comparison. To be apt, it would have to present Jesus as being grilled on whether he said something on a particular subject and on what date 30 years ago, and he referred to a document he himself put in writing at the time, which is bound to be more correct than remote memory of the events.

I have no idea why the Archdiocese is not stressing Andersons' admission on this point, which is much more relevant than what they did say, which is that the Abp was answering a different question, which is just not plausible from the text.

Keep in mind that Anderson's purpose was to get Abp Carlson to somehow contradict his previous testimony or what was in the documents and make him out to be a liar, giving him something he can trumpet to the press. None of this, by the way could be used to convict him of anything, because he's not being charged with anything. I'm convinced it is really just vindictiveness. I believe this whole deposition was a ploy to get at an orthodox Archbishop who is known for having a good record on abuse. SNAP and lawyers like Anderson want to discredit the Church, honestly or not.

I'm not surprised that Abp Carlson would try his best not to give Anderson a chance to trip him up. I'll admit that the strategy was probably poorly chosen, probably by the lawyers, since "I don't remember" will be taken as an attempt at a coverup by anyone not familiar with the legal maneuverings going on.

Lori, I have read the entire deposition and I am willing to admit you may be somewhat correct in your assessment of the situation.

But it does not excuse the archbishop's claim that he wasn't sure if he knew sex with children was a crime. That's unconscionable. It's the behavior of Bill Clinton, not a successor to the apostles.

And it does not excuse the lie Carlson told today in his press release, in claiming he was quoted out of context, when he wasn't. Many Catholics are running with this press release, without even reading the relevant pages of the deposition it sites. Carlson was not misquoted, and it is dishonest of him to suggest he was.

Lori, I can tell from your comment that you're clearly a fair and intelligent person. So I'm going to appeal to your intelligence and fairness.

Do you have any non-Catholic friends? Are you aware the harm that this kind of legalistic cover-your-ass dishonesty does when a bishop behaves like this in a matter concerning the sexual abuse of children? How are we to respond to our non-Catholic acquaintances when a successor to the apostles behaves like this? How are we to claim that our Church has anything to do with Jesus Christ when the archdiocese of St. Paul enables a serial molester, and Carlson covers for the diocese, and by extension for the molester?

We are simply asking our bishops to behave like decent human beings. We are not even asking that they be good Christians, or holy men, or particularly charitable or loving. We are not asking them to be martyrs. We are not asking them to do great penance or make public acts of reparation. We are only asking that they behave like decent human beings. And covering your ass by acting as if you didn't know that child rape was a crime - and then lying about that by publicly claiming you were quoted out of context when you weren't - this is not the behavior of a decent human being.

Kevin, as I said, I consider that the "I don't remembers" were simply shorthand for "Don't you have that in the documents?" I will willingly admit that to most people, the words are going to indicate that the Abp is either a fool or a liar or someone who is covering something up. But that doesn't mean that he actually is any of those things. If there is any concrete evidence in the deposition that he is covering something up, then perhaps you can tell me what it is? I actually have not read it all, but a good deal of it.

The documents do indicate he knew sex abuse was a crime; the real test is how he used that knowledge. Did he cover anything up to avoid prosecution? It doesn't seem so from what I read. That would be the real point.

I don't know why the diocesan statement was worded the way it was. There's no indication the Abp himself wrote it, but he must have at least approved it. Maybe it was just hard to say, "those I don't knows were a strategy," making it look as if the Abp lied under oath. I'll admit, as I think I have already, that it was a very poor strategy and Anderson has made the most of it.

However, "shamefully" is a strong word, and I wouldn't use it to describe Abp Carlson's behavior in this case. Please present your evidence that he was claiming not to know to cover up or excuse any criminal activity - then we can use the word "shameful."

It's been a while since I read all of the documents regarding this case. As I said here - http://www.thwordinc.blogspot.com/2014/06/archbishop-carlson-and-irony.html - as I recall from the documents they were grilling him about (all of which I read a year or so ago), Carlson was waving red flags at the time over a priest that other bishops were ignoring, a serial molester who went on to molest others after Carlson made a mild attempt to intervene - but an attempt, at least.

I don't think the deposition was meant to trap him personally. None of the documents I've seen indicated he was at fault in the case in question, other than by not going to the police, which no one in any chancery office did in those days, and in not raising more of a stink. His silence made him complicit, but he made as much noise as he probably thought advisable, given the times and his position. Nothing to be proud of but not "shameful".

His testimony, however, is shameful. Or, if you will, craven. You and I both agree it was a bad strategy. But he's a bishop, a very public Christian. The testimony was dishonest at worst, worldly-wise and pusillanimous at best.

Could he not simply say, "You know, I regret not doing more. I failed as a Christian and as a bishop by not making certain that my superiors kept dangerous men away from children. May God and the victims forgive me."

This might cost the diocese some money - but it would be the Christian thing to do, if that word even has any meaning any more.

I think you are correct that he probably could have done more as a Christian, and showed more courage. But why castigate him at this point?

I would far rather go after truly shameful people like bishops who did engage in cover-ups. or people like Anderson, who is unscrupulous and does target people unfairly, partly out of greed and partly out of a vendetta against the Church, in which he is undiscriminating in who he attacks.

But it's late now, I'm flying home for vacation early tomorrow and I don't want to detail this any more right now, though there is a ton I could say about it.